Can a prosecutor in a civil case argue to a jury that it can find a defendant guilty based on a reasonable account of the evidence?

This argument did not misstate the law. A prosecutor may not tell a jury that it can "find [a] defendant guilty based on a 'reasonable' account of the evidence" because doing so violates the mandate that a verdict rest upon a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. (People v. Centeno (2014) 60 Cal.4th 659, 673, italics omitted.) However, a prosecutor may urge the jury to "'decide what is reasonable to believe versus unreasonable to believe' and to 'accept the reasonable and reject the unreasonable'" because that urging does not dilute the

Page 29

prosecution's burden of proof. (People v. Romero (2008) 44 Cal.4th 386, 416.) The prosecutor's argument in this case falls into the latter category, and not the former: She implored the jury to "decide" "[w]hat's reasonable" and to "reject what's unreasonable"; at no point did she state that any reasonable account of the evidence satisfied the People's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.